Standing Committee B

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Clause 220 - Gaming machines: Categories A to D

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Ann McKechin: As I was saying when we adjourned this morning, the Opposition parties have tried to suggest that category A machines should be piloted in medium-sized and small casinos, which exist under the current gambling legislation. However, both parties failed to recognise the fundamental difference between the type and, in particular, the location of medium-sized and small casinos, and super-casinos.
 In my city, for example, the majority of the five or six small to medium-size casinos are on the high street in the middle of retail centres. They are located in similar places to the local bookmaker. The type of premise that they are in, the clientele that they are likely to attract and the times that they are likely to open are therefore substantially different from those of the so-called super-casinos, which will, in the norm, be in separate locations. Visiting them would involve a specific intention, rather than their being something on the high street to pop into on the way to the shops or to visit relatives. Using super-casinos is a specific leisure activity, which requires specific intention and, normally, a visit. 
 The second thing that the Opposition suggestion ignores is that the reason the Government have agreed to consider super-casinos is the potential that they offer for regeneration in areas that require greater economic growth and investment. If we decide to pilot the category A machines in a host of different locations, many of which are not in regeneration areas, the likely benefit of locating in a regeneration area will be diminished. The likely consequential improvement to economic growth and employment to regeneration areas will also be diminished. In fact, the fundamental intention of the Bill—in terms of creating super-casinos—will be put at risk.

Malcolm Moss: Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee why the scrutiny Committee, which considered the issue in great detail and took a huge range of evidence, recommended that category A machines should be placed in both small and large casinos?

Ann McKechin: With respect, the Government are entitled to consider what the scrutiny Committee stated and then make their own views known. They also take into account not only the views of the industry, which Opposition parties have referred to throughout because it is to the industry's advantage to pilot category A machines, but the interests of our constituents and other groups and organisations that have expressed concern about the way that we control gambling.
 The Government, having listened to the concerns that were expressed on both sides of the House on Second Reading about the number of casinos to be initially introduced, were right to decide that the number of super-casinos to be introduced will be low; that given the size and nature of the development concerned, super-casinos are likely to be located off the high street; and that we can then judge whether, based on the review that the Government have said they will implement, category A machines have a disadvantageous effect on gambling addiction problems. 
 I do not understand how a pilot scheme in high street locations would be an improvement. In fact, I think that it presents greater dangers, the like of which—as is clear from the sentiments expressed by various Members on Second Reading—Members do not wish to face at this stage. They prefer to adopt a more cautious approach.

Richard Page: I rise with a degree of hesitation, because when I spoke on clause 219, the Minister said that, although I am normally fair-minded and use a broad-brush approach, this time I was pedantic and approaching the issue as if in a debating society. It seemed to me that I was getting somewhere near the truth of the matter. The Minister was starting to squirm a little, because I was making the point that the powers given to the Secretary of State under that clause were excessive. Defending democracy and the liberties of the individual, I felt that some transgression was taking place. It is with temerity that I go on, and I am not too sure how the Minister will react to what I say. If he says that I am broad-brushed and open-minded, I will have failed in what I am trying to say today, but there we are, that is the way the cookie crumbles.
 In an earlier intervention in this debate, I made a point about the time scale. The scrutiny Committee, on which I had the privilege and pleasure to serve, made several recommendations. With new casinos, after three years the agreed entitlement should be reviewed. The Government's response stated that they were 
''minded to await the results of at least two prevalence studies, after the implementation of the new regime, before considering significant alteration to the gaming machine entitlements of all types of casinos.'' 
In an intervention, I made a point, which, realising its strength and power, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), seized upon. I wish to re-emphasise it. The prevalence studies are carried out by organisations that are very knowledgeable about the gaming industry. For 
 example, I refer to the Association of British Bookmakers, which has agreed a code of practice with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Gaming Board for Great Britain which has been adopted by the betting industry. It is being rigorously applied, enforced and policed through a formal compliance committee. That does not come cheap, but it is being carried out by the industry for the good of society. It has already cost the industry £200,000, and it will cost another £200,000 to introduce it and bring it to completion. 
 The inherent understanding in that agreement is that the code will be enshrined in regulations to be applied by the gambling commission. If we are going to carry out this work, we want to ensure that the results agreed are enshrined in the day-to-day operation of the gaming and gambling industry. The ABB has funded extensive research, conducted not by itself—because it might be said that it was all in-house—but by MORI and European Economics, aimed at ensuring the code's effectiveness. Again, although the research is funded by the ABB and the DCMS are getting the results for free, the Department has been fully engaged in defining the terms of reference of the research. 
 This is not, as is so often the case when Governments undertake reviews, a question of the industry defining, investigating and monitoring itself; it is an external operation. I therefore feel that the Government should state the time scale in which they expect to respond to the results of the review. The Minister owes it to the Committee to say when they will respond, explaining how they will deal with the results of all those studies. The review under discussion is just one, costing £400,000. I know that it is not the Government's money, and they are fairly careless and cavalier with other people's money, so, on behalf of the industry, I ask the Government to state the time scale for their response to and implementation of measures for the benefit of the gaming industry.

Richard Caborn: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Pike. It is good to have you back.
 The clause allows the creation of four categories of gaming machine to be defined in regulations. Category D machines will have the lowest maximum stakes and prizes, and category A machines will have no limits on stakes and prizes. Subsection (2) will allow regulations to subdivide category B. That means that we can create B1, B2, B3 and B4 categories of machine to cater for the different allowances in betting offices, bingo premises and clubs. 
 Regulations made under the clause must categorise machines by reference to the nature of the gambling facilities provided. They may refer to amounts paid to use the machine, the nature and value of prizes and the premises where a machine is used. Our present proposals on stake and prize limits have been published in the regulatory impact assessment, which was referred to by several hon. Members earlier. In making these proposals, we received representations—I am sure that Committee members will hear this—
 from every part of the gambling industry. To date, the discussions have been one-sided because of the voices we have been hearing in the prosecution of the case. 
 Those making representations argued for higher stakes and prizes for themselves, and lower stakes and prizes for their perceived competitors. We have also received representations from faith and children's groups who urged us to be even tougher on machine gambling. We believe that it is right to proceed cautiously and look closely at the evidence to make sure that we are not taking unacceptable risks. The clause gives us the power to make new regulations if the evidence shows that any of those machines are driving up levels of problem gambling. Therefore, we propose that category A machines be limited to regional casinos for the time being. 
 Category B machines include all machines currently known as casino jackpot machines as well as fixed odds betting terminals now found in betting offices. B1 machines will be available in casinos, and B2 in betting shops. Bingo halls and adult gaming centres will be allowed category B machines with prize limits of £500, and clubs and institutes will, under part 12, be allowed category B machines with £250 prize limits. Those will be B3 and B4 machines respectively. 
 Category C machines, with a £25 prize limit, will be available to premises licensed for alcohol and to licensed family entertainment centres. Finally, category D machines, with a prize limit of £5, will be available to family entertainment centres with permits, covering, for example, many seaside amusement premises and travelling fairs. 
 By setting stakes and prize limits in regulations, the Secretary of State will be able to make changes at any time, subject to the approval by Parliament of those changes. The regulations will be made using the affirmative resolution procedure.

Don Foster: May I ask the Minister about two points? First, will he repeat what he said about B2 machines? There was some confusion earlier as to whether FOBTs could be used in premises licensed for betting other than betting shops Secondly, he acknowledged earlier in his deliberations, and has repeated again today, that there is little evidence concerning category D machines to date, and more research is needed. Can he explain why, without any detailed final convincing research, the Government are making the major change of reducing the prize limit for those machines from £8 to £5?

Richard Caborn: I will go through all the questions that were asked and give answers. A question was asked about category A machines and small and large casinos. We rejected the recommendation from the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee for very good reasons. It was clear on Second Reading that access to category A machines was of real concern to the House and the public; that concern manifested itself during the debate. That is why we reacted as we did and limited the number of regional casinos to eight. If we had not done that, there would have been real problems in returning to the House with a Bill. It would, therefore, be ludicrous to accept eight regional
 casinos, but then to allow 130 casinos that already operate on our high streets to have category A machines as well. Indeed, we believe that we responded properly to the public mood and that is why we limited the number of regional casinos to eight and limited category A machines to those eight regional casinos.

Nick Hawkins: Because of my commitments to a Select Committee, I did not hear the latter part of this morning's proceedings, but I want to comment on what the Minister has just said and to ask him if I understood him correctly. He seemed to be eliding what the Government said on Second Reading with their subsequent U-turn on eight casinos. On Second Reading, they argued the opposite of what they more recently argued when making their U-turn in Committee. Is the Minister adopting the scrutiny Committee's report, or is he saying that, following the Government's huge U-turn, the scrutiny Committee was wrong? Which is it?

Richard Caborn: What I am saying is simple. There was a debate in the House. My Secretary of State said clearly in the House and in public that if there was a force of evidence to suggest that we had not got it right, we would reflect on that, and we did. Sometimes, we have to be big boys and return to school to tell pupils in the school yard what we have done. I make no apology for that, because that is democracy. When the House spoke, it spoke positively. Some of my hon. Friends were concerned about the matter and we reacted to that. There is nothing wrong with doing that in a democracy. We have done it; we are big enough; we have come back; that is what we have done. I hope that we now have agreement across all parties.

Malcolm Moss: I rise as a bully in the school yard.

Richard Caborn: I never mentioned the word ''bully''.

Malcolm Moss: The implication was there. I am puzzled by some of the logic. The Government rejected the scrutiny Committee's recommendation on category A machines in existing small and large casinos months ago and before Second Reading. At that time, the Government had in mind 20 to 40 regional casinos, each with 1,250 category A machines. To repeat what I said this morning, that could mean a maximum of around 50,000 category A machines. The Minister was correct in that he and his colleagues responded to the arguments on Second Reading, the press campaign and the reaction in the country to such a large number of regional casinos, but the Government were happy to reject category A machines in ordinary existing casinos when it was contemplating 50,000 machines elsewhere. Now they have changed their tune to eight regional casinos and a reduced number of, say, 10,000 category A machines. Why would the extra 900 machines that we are proposing should go into small and large casinos on a proportional basis cause any difficulty whatever?

Richard Caborn: I go back to the earlier argument that we want to control the number of category A machines in regional casinos, whether there are eight or 20 of them. That was the Government's position. We responded to concerns about the number of regional casinos. If we accede to the suggestions that have been made, we would be extending the provision on category A machines to the 130 casinos that are already operational. We are not prepared to accept that.

Bob Russell: Have there been any representations from the American backers of regional casinos who do not want existing UK casinos to have category A machines?

Richard Caborn: Not to me; I would not accept such representations. If they have been made to other Committee members, so be it, but as far as I am concerned the answer is a categorical no.
 FOBTs—category B2 machines—are already in betting shops, and that was an agreement with the industry. We said that that was a probation arrangement and it still is. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire mentioned the report. I have not seen it, but it is in my Department. My officials have a copy of it and I believe that they went to a seminar on it some time last week. Hopefully I will receive it in the next few days.

Don Foster: Just to get the flow of things right, the Minister will see that I tabled a parliamentary question about this very issue. Perhaps he can answer it now to save a lot of time for officials. Will he assure the Committee that, once he has read the report—I accept that he says that he has not yet read it—he will place copies in the Library of the House and make them available to members of the Committee?

Richard Caborn: Yes, although the report will probably be in every betting shop, because it is not just our property. It is the ABB's property, as well as ours. I have no doubt that it will be in every betting shop and the Library of the House of Commons, so all the informed people will be able to read it.
 On the decision on the B2s, and why they are not in the bingo halls, at the moment bingo halls can have four machines with a payout of £250, but they will be able to have four machines with a payout of £500. That is a new promotional opportunity. I am talking not about FOBTs, but about category B3 machines with a payout of £500. They have the same maximum prize money of £500, but the stake is different. Why? It is because there is hard gambling in betting shops; if someone wants to put thousands of pounds on horses, they can do so. There is a difference between where hard gambling and where softer gambling take place, which is why we believe that category B3 machines—with a £1 stake and a maximum payout of £500—are right for bingo halls, and FOBTs are right for betting shops. FOBTs will also be allowed in large and small casinos: 150 in the large and 80 in the small. I think that was what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was referring to. 
 The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) asked in great detail who had paid for the research that is being done. Earlier there was some suggestion that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport may have put a few bob into it. It did not. It was paid for in totality from outside, although—

Richard Page: I would hate the Minister to run away with the idea that I suggested that the DCMS put any money in at all. It was the industry that put the money in to work out the code of conduct for those particular machines.

Richard Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would know that there was an hon. Member earlier in the debate who said that he thought that the DCMS had put some money in.

Malcolm Moss: It was me, guv.

Richard Caborn: I made it clear that the ABB paid for that out of the small profits that its members made.

Malcolm Moss: Now that this has become public I must make a grovelling apology to the ABB for even suggesting that the DCMS put one penny into its research.

Richard Caborn: Miracles take a little longer, if I may say so. I reiterate for the record that we did not provide any of the money.
 On the important question of time, as has been indicated, we propose to restrict the prevalence studies to two over a six-year period. Therefore, there will be a prevalence study every two to three years and change will not be possible until six years after implementation. That was clearly known during pre-legislative scrutiny.

Richard Page: I have a simple question for the Minister: has he ever run a business? Does he really think that people can hang on for six years waiting for the Government finally to make up their mind? That is an incredible admission.

Richard Caborn: Is it a matter of making one's mind up? I do not think so. It is a matter of having the advice and information with which to make an objective judgment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows about medium and long-term strategies. All I am saying is that there is concern in the House, and Members wanted to run, in the words of one hon. Member, pilot studies. We have responded to that. Such studies need time to bed down. Once the results are known, the House will decide whether it wants to proceed with any further regional, large or small casinos. We made that very clear. Opposition Members asked us to do that. We have provided that lock, and the final decision will rest with Parliament. That is what people asked for; that is what we responded to; and that is what I announced when I said that we would limit the number to eight casinos.

Mark Prisk: I also listened to that admission with great concern. Will the Minister respond in a positive tone to this request? If it becomes clear from representations made by the
 industry that the provision is having an onerous and undue effect on the industry, will the Minister consider them seriously and decide whether the Government are able to respond? Six years is a worryingly long period. Returning to this morning's discussion of owner-managers, this measure might be the difference between them having a successful business in the future or not.

Richard Caborn: I do not quite follow the logic of that. Members asked, ''What is the period of time before the decision will be made?'' I have said that there will be two prevalence studies—one every two to three years. That is because we are informed that a certain period is needed to gather that information, to analyse it and to make some well based conclusions on which decisions can be made. Shortening that period would run certain risks: incomplete evidence, on which wrong decisions may well be made.

Malcolm Moss: Why is the Minister talking about two consecutive three-year prevalence studies? Why cannot a prevalence study on category A machines in regional casinos and the FOBT research that is currently being undertaken run together in the first three-year period? I am not sure that I understand why there must be another three years after the first three years.

Richard Caborn: We have never said that they would be coterminous; we have said that there would be two prevalence studies. Our view, which probably now needs to be defined a little more clearly, is that they will not run in parallel. They will run not consecutively but in two three-year periods. That was and still is our intention. We believe—as indeed does the House—that that period is necessary to be able to make a sound decision, and we will bring back that information.

Malcolm Moss: I need to get on the record exactly what the Minister is saying, because I am still very confused. Is he talking about studies of the eight regional casinos? Do they come into that trial and study period? If so, it will be three to four years before the first regional casinos are up and running. He then talks about six years added to that—so, 10 years is that? I have notes from one of the American casino developers which say that three years is too long. If the Minister is talking about 10 years, the Government can say bye-bye to any future investment from worldwide casino developers.

Richard Caborn: There is a slight contradiction here: we are being accused on one hand of attracting American money, and on the other of ensuring in a systematic, transparent way that the American developers do not come to this country. I do not accept that argument. The prevalence studies are national studies on gambling behaviour. We are moving into a different era. I say again for those who have seen what has happened in Australia and other countries, we want to be absolutely clear on how we take this nation forward in this area. Therefore, we will be very cautious.
 The prevalence studies are important to informing the House of Commons and Parliament so that they can make a sound decision. The hon. Member for 
 South-West Hertfordshire asked me to spell it out. He may not like it, but I have now spelled it out in very clear terms. We believe that as national studies of gambling behaviour the prevalence studies need three years and then a further three years to get the advice and evidence that is necessary for the House to make a sound decision.

Don Foster: Notwithstanding the information that the Minister gave the Committee, which will be of concern to many, will he confirm that, despite the lack of new regulation on the matter for the period that he described, it would be perfectly possible for the commission to use its powers to pursue the licensing objective to make significant changes to the way in which any of the machines in any of the categories are operated, given that the commission will have powers in relation to prize, frequency and so on?

Richard Caborn: The answer to that is: ''No, it will not.'' It will not have that power other than if harm has been proven and the commission came back. It can then intervene. However, in terms of increasing numbers and payouts, the answer is, ''No, it will not''. As we said about the triple lock that we have put on, this is one of those that we are saying clearly needs to be spelled out to give reassurance to people that those things are not going to run away.

Don Foster: What if the commission were to obtain, by whatever means, evidence that has not necessarily come from the official prevalence studies but from other sources—perhaps from GamCare—that there needs to be a change in, for example, the level of prizes? My understanding from what the Minister told the Committee some weeks ago is that, through discussions with the Secretary of State, the commission would be able to lead to changes being made in the prize or frequency with which machines operate. That was my clear understanding. Is the Minister now saying that the commission will be barred from taking any such action for the six-year period?

Richard Caborn: The commission cannot do it itself. [Interruption.] Sorry, that is not what the hon. Gentleman said. Let me put it on the record. It can recommend to the Secretary of State, who can then vary, but it will be the Secretary of State coming back to the House of Commons. That is what I believe the House of Commons was saying clearly in that Second Reading debate.

Richard Page: The Minister has now got me thoroughly confused. Does that mean that, if the gambling commission recommends something that the Secretary of State likes in the six-year period, that recommendation can be implemented in less than six years, but the prevalence studies cannot be implemented in that six-year period? I am muddled of South-West Hertfordshire.

Richard Caborn: There can be a variation on a Secretary of State recommendation, but the policy is to wait for six years. So, the policy that we are setting now is that there can be variation. I take that, because we cannot move on six, for example. What the House was saying clearly on the question of the eight regional casinos and, indeed, what we eventually said on things such as that, that will not move. That is what the real concern is.
 If we are talking about variation in terms of opportunity on a recommendation from the gambling commission, let us be clear what we are saying. In terms of policy, there will be no movement. In terms of variation in that policy, that would mean, if one wanted to do that under the Gaming Act 1968, that one always had to come back because it could make recommendations to the Secretary of State.

Don Foster: May I remind the Minister that we are debating clause 220, which defines the four categories of machines with their various subcategories? It defines the stakes and prizes that would be allowed for each category.
 My question was whether we could get clarification that the Secretary of State could, before the six-year period is out, receive advice from the gambling commission that some change should be made to the amount paid in respect of the use of the machine, the value of prizes, the nature of prizes and the premises where machines are used. Those are the categories covered in the clause. If the gambling commission, based on whatever evidence it has, makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a change be made to various aspects of the various categories, can the Secretary of State, if she or he is so minded, make regulation subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament to make those changes in a period shorter than six years?

Richard Caborn: The answer to that is yes. The confusion arose when we were talking about prevalence studies. A prevalence study goes much wider—I want to be absolutely clear about this—than categories of machines. People were challenging us on the question of regional casinos and there are eight regional casinos. That is policy, and it will stop for that six-year period. On the question of variation within that—that is, categories of machine—the answer is yes, on recommendation to the Secretary of State, and yes, in the House of Commons.

Nick Hawkins: I want to raise two quick points. Yesterday, awards were given out by the Plain English Campaign and I shall take the Hansard containing the Minister's contributions on this point and submit it, so that he is a nominee for the awards in 12 months' time for lack of clarity in Government statements.
 I also wanted to tell the Minister that when I popped out of the Committee Room just now, I found a large briefing document on the Government's latest amendments on the message board, which includes guidance from the Government on clause 226. We shall come shortly to that clause, which affects gaming machines of categories C and D. As we have had a wide-ranging debate on all aspects of categorisation, I 
 wanted to find out from the Minister whether he has ensured that all Committee members have that document. If I have only just picked one up from the board, and if it affects clause 226, to which clause 220 makes overarching reference, all Committee members ought to see it. I do not know whether that is a point of order, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: Order. Do not confuse the Chair by referring to clause 226. We shall have to consider where we are on that matter. I received several papers on different amendments earlier today.

Richard Caborn: The Chair will have to determine whether that has been made available to Committee members. I cannot answer that question. I shall probably be here during the next Session of Parliament to answer such questions; the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) might not. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to bash it around a bit, fine—we will all start bashing it around a bit.
 Clause 56 deals with the reserve powers referred to by the hon. Member for Bath. He asked why we needed similar reserve powers for category A machines, which children cannot play. The reason that we have taken the powers under clause 56 concerns the age of those using category D machines. We do not need the reserve powers as far as others are concerned.

Malcolm Moss: I just want to make absolutely certain that I have this right in my simple mind. Subsection (4) allows regulations to be made about the amount paid in respect of the use of a machine, which is the stake; the value of the prizes, which is the payout; the nature of the prize, whether it is a cuddly toy or cash, and the premises where the machine is used. Those are critical points, which relate to everything we have discussed for the past several hours—category A, B, C and D machines, what they pay out, how much one can bet and where they are located.
 Is the Minister saying that at any time the gambling commission can revisit all the arguments we have deployed since 10 o'clock this morning and make recommendations to the Secretary of State for changes to be made? Can that happen at any time once the gambling commission is up and running?

Richard Caborn: The answer to that is yes. It can make any recommendation it wants to the Secretary of State, and if he or she believes that the recommendation should be put to the House, that can be done by statutory instrument. However, the final decision rests with the House.

Mark Prisk: I am not clear whether the Minister has finished.

Richard Caborn: I thought the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wanted to reply.
 I shall return to my point about category D machines and clause 56. The reason we have adopted the powers under clause 56 relates to the age of children playing. Maximum prizes have been reduced from £8 to £5 because machines with non-monetary prizes encourage people to play again. We have 
 reduced the temptation to play, and that was generally accepted across the piece. With non-redeemable and non-monetary prizes, the maximum stake can be 30p. 
 On BACTA, when I previously had responsibility for gambling, the number of concessions we made in trying to ensure the viability of seaside arcades in relation to what we got from Budd and the White Paper, ''A Safe Bet for Success'', was considerable. One concession we made was on 30p for non-monetary prizes. We had extensive discussions with BACTA. If, at the end of the day, BACTA's only problem and greatest objection is over a £5 teddy bear and an £8 teddy bear, quite honestly, I do not believe that that will bring down family arcades.

Mark Prisk: The Minister seems to say that the matter is of no great concern. However, may I ask for his response to the point made by my constituent, Mrs. Elliott, who runs Lakeside Superbowl? It employs 25 people, and the machines are crucial, because they represent 20 per cent. of her revenue. We wrote to the Minister on 28 October and have yet to receive a reply. Nevertheless, I ask him to respond to that point positively and to realise that it means people's livelihoods. That lady employs real people. In this case, they are not at the seaside, but they are still important jobs in small businesses that are struggling with the regulations he is proposing.

Richard Caborn: When I had that portfolio, we had extensive discussions. Those particular machines may represent about 20 per cent. of revenue, but moving from £8 to £5 does not mean that that part of the marketplace will disappear. That is not the case as far as I understand it. We accept that an £8 teddy bear is desirable, but we conceded 30p—from 10p to 30p—for non-monetary prizes in part of those discussions.

Bob Russell: I ask the Minister not to change any minds today, because he is clearly in his stubborn mood, but to reflect on category D machines and cuddly toys as well as the £5 payout. Does not he accept that, although the headlines will be about super-casinos, the reality in many communities will be the loss of the fish and chip shop caused by the loss of an important part of the turnover and profit of that enterprise?
 Furthermore, perhaps the Minister can tell us when the value of the cuddly toy was fixed at £8, and will he also explain who will determine the value of the £5 cuddly toy? Is it the retail value, the manufactured price, the discounted wholesale price or the unit price per item as purchased by the person running the amusement arcade? I can think of at least four definitions of how to reach £5, and I am sure that the industry will find others.

Richard Caborn: The industry may. Clause 322 defines the value, so if the hon. Gentleman would like to wait until then, we can have another debate about teddy bears. Anybody would think that the greatest thing on this Bill was £5 to £8 teddy bears and that the whole viability of seaside resorts rested on teddy bears at £8.

Don Foster: Given that the Minister has a detailed knowledge of the Bill, as judged by his answer, will he tell us where in clause 322 that definition is explained? My reading of the clause is that the definition will be by regulation. Do we have a copy of the draft regulation in order to answer my hon. Friend's question?

Richard Caborn: When I come to clause 322, I will answer those questions. That would be the most appropriate time to answer them, unless I get an answer quickly now. The answer is in a regulation because it is so complex, but that is the answer I will give when we get to clause 322. When we get there, I will explain how we will deal with the value of £8 and £5 teddy bears. We will enshrine it in regulation, and it will be laid clearly before the world.
 I do not know about the hon. Member for Surrey Heath not being told about some of the information he needed for the debate, but The Guardian reported this morning, ''Tories raise stakes over bingo.'' We were informed that their ex-colleague asked them to table some amendments this morning. That is the headline in that paper. At least we had some knowledge, but not to worry because the report quotes the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) explaining that the amendments were only ''probing amendments'' from the Tories. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 220 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Pike, given that I suspect that you will include clause 226 in the list of clauses that you seek to put together, I ask you to reflect on the request that has already been made that before we move on to that clause copies of the document referred to by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath should be made available to all members of the Committee. I certainly wish to raise a number of points on that clause.

Peter Pike: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I will leave clause 226 at the moment. If anyone shouts out when I mention any of the clauses, I will take that clause separately. I will put clauses 221, 222, 223, 224 and 225 together. The question is that those clauses stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. We would like to raise some questions.

Peter Pike: On which clauses?

Mark Prisk: In my case, as I indicated, clauses 221, 222 and 223.

Peter Pike: I will take them separately and then anyone who wants to make a point can do so. I am sorry; I misunderstood. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was nodding in agreement to taking the clauses en bloc. It was my misunderstanding.Clause 221 Adult gaming centre

Clause 221 - Adult gaming centre

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: Perhaps members of the Committee will be disappointed to learn that I shall not detain them too long on the clause. It is concerned with factual but nevertheless important issues which I hope the Minister can help us to clarify. That would certainly be an improvement on the previous clause.
 On the definition of an adult gaming centre, I assume—again, I may be wrong—that the age that we are referring to is 21. I am certainly no expert in that field. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and identify where that is set out in the explanatory notes, because I failed to find it? Further to that point, I notice that, in contrast to clause 222—which I will address in a moment if I catch your eye, Mr. Pike—this clause clearly states that 
'''adult gaming centre' means premises in respect of which an adult gaming centre premises licence has effect.'' 
It is the premises licence that I am concerned with. Will the Minister confirm the nature and characteristics of the conditions of that premises licence? Is there any differential in relation to the other form of comparative licence that an operator would clearly have to seek?

Richard Caborn: Let me outline what we mean by the clause. It relates to premises where an adult gaming centre premises licence has been granted. The adult is 18 years of age, not 21 years of age. Such a licence is available to premises that use category B machines. If adult gaming centres wish to offer category B machines, they must obtain a premises licence. That is the criterion. If an arcade wishes to offer only category C machines, it can apply for a family entertainment centre premises licence.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister. That has helpfully put a number of important aspects on the record.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 221 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 222 - Family entertainment centre

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: As with the previous clause, I have just a couple of issues. Clearly, the definition of a family entertainment centre is wide. According to my understanding, the insertion of the word ''and'' in the middle of the clause means that it goes beyond those areas that are licensed. It states that
 ''In this Act— 
 'family entertainment centre' means premises (other than an adult gaming centre) wholly or mainly used for making gaming machines available for use, and
 'licensed family entertainment centre' means premises in respect of which a family entertainment centre premises licence has effect.'' 
On initial reading, I assumed that that meant that those were two distinct things. I am not sure that that is the case and it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the matter. In doing so, will he confirm the scope of what we are talking about? I anticipate that, as the way in which the enjoyment of shopping and leisure activities changes, there will be an overlap in the nature of the premises. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with the fact that many shopping malls now have leisure elements in their operation. One question is what is determined as the premises. 
 Admittedly, I come to the issue as a chartered surveyor who is concerned about how to define the hereditament in such cases, but I want to make sure that we understand the scope of the legislation. Does it include leisure centres? Does it include the leisure element in a retail centre? Does it include resorts, which were referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), who talked about destination resorts? So, in responding to this short debate, will the Minister elaborate on what he understands to be included in the family entertainment centres that he seeks to regulate?

Richard Caborn: Clause 222 provides two definitions: one for family entertainment centres, the other for licensed family entertainment centres. Those cover certain types of machine arcades and amusement centres. If premises are not in an adult gaming centre and they are wholly or mainly used for providing gaming machines, they will be a family entertainment centre. That distinguishes premises such as a pub or a club, which have only a few gaming machines, from premises such as arcades, whose main business is gaming machines.
 However, there are two types of family entertainment centre under the Bill: one that offers just category D machines and one that offers category C and D machines. If a family entertainment centre wants to install category C machines, it must get an operating licence from the gambling commission and a premises licence from the local authority. It is those family entertainment centres that are known as licensed family entertainment centres. Category C machines will have to be sited in an adult-only area that is properly supervised, as required by clause 44(7). 
 If, however, a family entertainment centre wants to operate only category D machines, all it requires is a permit from the local authority. Clause 231 provides the procedure for getting those permits and clause 222 sets out the definition of family entertainment centres that are licensed and those that are not. 
 The premises will be the specific area. They can be part of a larger complex such as a shopping centre, but the gambling will always be separated from the retail side. There will be a clear distinction. We can see such a distinction if we look at motorway service stations, as they have been dealt with clearly in terms of both the area and the classification inside that area.

Mark Prisk: May I take it that there will be a plan that distinguishes the licensed area from the unlicensed area?

Richard Caborn: Yes. Operators will be licensed in that part of the building that has either category C or category D machines in it, but not in the whole building.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 222 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. On the issue that I raised a few minutes ago, I have now found that not only has one copy of the amendment been sent to me by the Department but that, for some bizarre reason, it has generously sent me two copies.

Richard Caborn: One is for Mrs. Foster.

Don Foster: She will be delighted to receive it. It is longer correspondence than she has got so far. Mr. Pike, may I have your assurance that there will be a sufficient period in which to read the document? It is lengthy.

Peter Pike: Which clause does the document relate to?

Don Foster: It relates to clause 226, which is coming up shortly.

Peter Pike: There are no amendments to clause 226 on today's amendment paper. We will therefore consider whether clause 226 will stand part of the Bill as it is.

Don Foster: Some of the material in the new amendments, which as you rightly say, Mr. Pike, deal with other parts of the Bill, nevertheless have a bearing on clause 226.

Peter Pike: No amendments have been tabled to clause 226 for consideration today, so I have to put the question on the clause as it is. It might be helpful if the Minister wrote to hon. Members about what he intends to do, but I can only follow the amendment paper as it is.

Nick Hawkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Just after we adjourned for lunch, the Government produced a document with around 10 pages of explanatory notes and a covering letter relating specifically to clause 226. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Bath simply wants a short suspension to enable all hon. Members to read the Government's explanatory notes and to see how they relate to clause 226. Would you consider a request made jointly by the hon. Gentleman and I—I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, among others, would also support such a request—for some time to enable us to look at what the Government are proposing in a clause that we are about to come to? Would it not be appropriate for us to have a chance to look at that?

Richard Caborn: May I try to help? If the document says clause 226, there has been a typing error.

Nick Hawkins: It says clause 226.

Richard Caborn: It should say clause 266. Perhaps we could have a short suspension, Mr. Pike, because I am bemused and do not quite know what the document says. If we suspend briefly, I might be able to settle the matter very quickly.

Peter Pike: The Committee will suspend for 10 minutes.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Mark Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I wish to register the strongest concern of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to the way in which matters are unfolding. Six pages of the new schedule were presented to us less than 24 hours ago and, as a member of the Committee, I have had only two minutes in which to consider the amendments. While I understand that the Government's argument is that there is a tidying-up element to certain parts of the Bill and that we will have the opportunity on Report to address the matters, members of the Committee will know that the truth is that there will be no time in which to do that. We are worried that the quality of the scrutiny that will be permissible will be inadequate. I seek your guidance.

Peter Pike: I do not think that we shall be debating such matters today. The Government are trying to be helpful by addressing the issue, but I have to call the amendments in the order in which they are selected. We are not likely to reach the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman referred today.

Mark Prisk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. Without wishing to disagree with you, I have scanned the details and it is clear that category C and D gaming machines are referred to and will be affected in substance. I entirely accept your point, but I wish to register our concern that the process that we are undertaking is inadequate and that the industry will see that the Bill will probably be inadequate, too.

Peter Pike: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is obviously not for the Chair, but for the Government. I am sure that the Minister has taken note of what has been said.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we are responding to what the industry has said, especially about the licensing authorities under the Licensing Act 2003, as against the provisions in the Gambling Bill. We are trying to be helpful to licensing authorities and to make sure that nothing falls between the two pieces of legislation. The amendments will deal with the concerns expressed by the industry and will put a belt and braces on the situation.
 Opposition Members have asked us to reassure small and medium-sized businesses and that is exactly what we are doing, because we can envisage a different 
 interpretation between two pieces of legislation. By tabling the amendments, we are responding to the industry. I am sorry that we have not been able to draft them before now, but when two Acts of Parliament are brought in broadly at the same time, crossovers have to be dealt with.

Nick Hawkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I hear what the Minister says, but we are talking about the problems that may affect small businesses, the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) referred earlier. It is significant to consider the position of small businesses that have an on-premises alcohol licence and may have category C or D machines, as referred to in the paragraph in the explanatory notes on clause 226. My worry and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who dealt with the Licensing Bill, is that many of the Government's promises specifically to local authorities when the Licensing Bill was introduced have flagrantly been broken.

Peter Pike: Order. I do not want us to debate the Licensing Bill.

Nick Hawkins: No, I am not going to go down that track. I simply want to say that the reason that so many Opposition Committee members have concerns about the Government coming forward at the last minute with further changes and explanations about the interlinking of premises where alcohol is sold with the new gaming licensing regime is that local authorities, particularly small boroughs such as mine in Surrey Heath, are very upset about the fact that they have been penalised by the Government breaking their promises over licensing.
 It is because of those broken promises and the concerns that we all have on behalf of small businesses in our constituencies that we are particularly anxious that the Government, having broken one set of promises that they made, are not allowed to get away with skating through last-minute changes to this legislation, with explanatory notes being produced at the final moment. I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a serious and genuine concern about what might happen the next time the Government want to make further changes. Committee members must have the explanatory notes before we address any further group of amendments that the Government want to introduce while the Bill is being considered.

Mark Prisk: One of the difficulties, which was referred to this morning, is that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its officials are conducting a series of negotiations in parallel with this Committee's scrutiny process. There is a danger in that: it has limited the opportunity for the Committee to effect its scrutiny properly—to have the necessary time and so forth—because things have been happening almost simultaneously. That is why the process is inadequate, and what we are discussing is a symptom of that inadequacy.

Peter Pike: Let us get on with the Bill now.

Richard Caborn: In defence of my officials and of what we are trying to do, any Members who have scrutinised legislation before will know that things happen as legislation is being taken through Parliament. Moreover, two or three pieces of legislation dovetail with this Bill. A new licensing authority is being formed within local authorities. It is inevitable that those affected will be concerned. We have responded to that. In keeping with the conventions of Parliament, we have tabled these amendments and there will be a full debate on them on Thursday, if we get that far, when concerns will be addressed, and people will have been able to digest the information that we have put before them. We believe that that is in keeping with the conventions and rules of Parliament that ensure that scrutiny can take place.

Peter Pike: Certainly, everything is in order. The Opposition have made their point. The Government have the right to table amendments at any stage, even when the legislation reaches the other place. Let us make progress now.Clause 223 Prize

Clause 223 - Prize

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: I can give Committee members time to digest other information by raising a couple of further points with the Minister.
 The clause deals with what is a prize. According to the clause, it includes 
''any money, article, right or service won''. 
Committee members will understand the points about the money or article, and I would not dare to drift in the direction of cuddly toys unless I wished to incur your wrath, Mr. Pike. However, I am concerned about the terms ''right'' and ''service''. At one extreme, I assume that service could include a prize such as a holiday. I doubt that that is the case in this instance, but for the industry's benefit, and so that we all know where we stand, I would be grateful if the Minister told us what he understands as falling within that definition. 
 Similar questions arise with regard to ''right''. I can imagine that there might be a prize that is the keys to the front door of your new home. That might be a legal right; it might be a property right. Again, I doubt whether it is correct in this context. However, it would be helpful if the Minister provided guidance as to exactly what he includes within that, because it is clear that the prize could be very significant. 
 On those two straightforward points, I hope that the Minister will be able to offer clarification.

Richard Caborn: The clause defines ''prize'' in relation to a gaming machine. The definition includes money, articles, rights or services won. It is a deliberately broad definition to ensure that the prize limit set for the gaming machines covers any benefit or reward offered by the machine. However, under the current law, an opportunity to have another free go at the gaming machine does not count as a prize and the
 clause maintains that position. A ''right or service'' could mean a holiday and someone still has to be gambling to win any benefit, so the answer to the question that I was asked is yes. If one wants to put those prizes up, they can be put up, although I doubt whether that would include the front-door keys to Mr. Pike's house. We believe that that explains the word ''prize''.

Mark Prisk: The Minister knows that I was not hoping to offer your good home to punters, Mr. Pike. I was seeking an explanation of the broader point, and I am not sure that the Minister provided it, of whether the word ''right'' includes a legal right for someone to win a home—in this case, the documentation.

Richard Caborn: Yes.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 223 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 224 - Use of Machine

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Malcolm Moss: Subsection (1) provides the option for the Secretary of State to
''make regulations controlling the circumstances in which a gaming machine is made available for use.'' 
In simple terms, there are different types of machine. Some are based on a random chance; in other words, the chance of winning on every game is the same, so the fact that a previous player happens to have had a big win on a particular machine will not alter the likelihood of a payout on the next game. That is one category of machine. 
 The other category is machines of a managed non-random nature, and amusement-with-prizes machines fall into that one. They allow the operator to determine the exact price value of payouts over a certain period, as opposed to merely setting the probability of payouts. If an AWP machine has paid out a large sum early on in a period, the money that it will pay out, and thus the probability of winning, is reduced. 
 There is a strong case for including some reference to the randomness of a particular machine in the clause. Perhaps the Minister will explain to the Committee why it was appropriate to omit it. It is not included in the regulations that the Secretary of State may bring to bear. I believe that the idea that gaming machines should be random was accepted in the Budd report, yet no reference to randomness appears in the clause. 
 The Secretary of State may make the regulations, but it is important that, before they are introduced, she should refer to empirical research on the impact of any strategy and the risk of unintended consequences, which may, of course, outweigh any intended benefits. The clause lacks any reference to the randomness of the machines about which the Secretary of State may 
 make regulations or to the fact that before regulations are made there ought to be reference to empirical research.

Mark Prisk: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the nature and intent of paragraph (e)? It refers to ''the display of information''. Does he have any views about why the Government might wish to include such a reference?

Malcolm Moss: I have to be entirely honest with my hon. Friend and say that it had not crossed my mind that that was a problem. Obviously, he has seen more than I did. No doubt, when he has the opportunity to get to his feet, he will explain to us what he thinks on the matter. I had no problem with that paragraph; my hon. Friend needs to make his own points at the appropriate time.

Nick Hawkins: My point is slightly different from those made by my hon. Friend, although, of course, I agree with what he just said.
 During the Committee proceedings, a number of us, including my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Cambridgeshire and for South-West Hertfordshire, have raised the large number of things in the Bill that are left to secondary legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire is particularly good at making the point that statutory instruments are nodded through, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, without our having any ability to amend them. Any Government with a large majority can force such things through the House. 
 Is there any chance of the Minister telling us that he and his advisers will do their best to let Committee members—and all hon. Members—see the regulations relating to clauses 224 and 225, at least in draft, before Report and Third Reading, and before the Bill goes to another place? That would be helpful. It is particularly important that the regulations controlling the circumstances in which gaming machines are to be used are drafted. I say that for the sake of the successful manufacturing industry in this country, members of which I have met regularly during the past 12 or 13 years at BACTA conferences and the successful Amusement Trade Exhibition International show. 
 The industry should know what the regulations will look like before Report and Third Reading, and before the Bill goes to another place. If it becomes law and the regulations are causing problems for the hard-pressed manufacturing industry and the operators, we will not have the opportunity to debate the regulations—it will be too late. I earnestly plead with the Minister and those who advise him to show all hon. Members at least a rough draft of regulations relating to this part of the Bill, because that would be helpful. I hope that if the Minister cannot undertake to do that, he will write and say that he is prepared to show us, the Committee members, a rough draft. 
 This Bill has been so long in gestation that I cannot believe that there are not some people somewhere in the Department who have not prepared an early draft 
 of the regulations for the use and supply part of the Bill. When my party was in government, I worked in the predecessor to the DCMS, the Department of National Heritage, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, so I have some understanding of how the Department used to work.

Richard Page: Perhaps I can follow in my hon. Friend's footprints, because I have expressed concern about the regulations and the power that the Bill will put into the hands of the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend said, clauses 224 and 225 are another example of such a power.
 I shall not read a comprehensive list from the Bill. If I were filibustering, I could read all the clauses bit by bit, up to clause 224, where the Secretary of State has a ''may'' rather than a ''shall'' power.

Eric Illsley: Go on then!

Richard Page: The hon. Gentleman tempts me.

Peter Pike: Order. The Chair does not.

Richard Page: I know where the power lies in this Committee and I will not upset the Chairman, Mr. Pike.
 Clause 4 is a ''may'' clause; clause 7 is a ''may or shall'' clause; then it goes a bit quiet until clauses 35, 36, 44, 52, 56, 74, 84, 88, 96 and 120.

Eric Illsley: House!

Richard Page: Not when I play bingo. ''May'' or ''shall'', or both, then appear in clauses 105, 116, 121, 125—I am nearly up to clause 224, Mr. Pike—147, 151, 157, 159, 163, 169, 186, 220, and so on.
 Those of us who have been in the House for a number of years have seen all this before. I vividly remember that everybody voted for the legislation establishing the Child Support Agency because it is right that people own up to their responsibilities. When the regulations were introduced, it was a nightmare. Every one of us who was a Member of Parliament at the time had people flooding into our surgery because the regulations were trapping them in an unreal world. 
 I am desperately worried that we have reached clause 224—you will be delighted to hear that I shall not speak to clause 225, Mr. Pike—and we have found regulation after regulation after regulation. I do not know why we are even bothering to debate the Bill. Why does the Bill not simply say, ''The Secretary of State may, by regulation, determine what is going to happen''? Then we could all go home. The Minister might be pleased by that because he has taken a bit of a drubbing today. 
 The Minister should explain how the regulations are to be addressed by the House. Statutory instruments are an almost automatic process—they pass through as if they were going through a sausage machine—and there is no opportunity for amendment or debate. We have the same thing here. By agreeing to the clause, we are saying, ''Whoops! It is over to the Secretary of State to do it by regulation.'' There is no debate or 
 discussion; it is all down to the Secretary of State. That is not satisfactory and it is not democracy. If we are going to run our lives through secondary legislation, why do we not all go home and leave it to the civil servants? We could pass through all these ''mays'' and ''shalls'' in one-and-a-half-hour sittings and I could spend more time with my family.

Richard Caborn: They would not like that.

Richard Page: The Minister may say that.
 I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government intend to deal with the matter. Will there be one statutory instrument, 50, or one per clause? How is it going to happen?

Richard Caborn: I am very disappointed by that contribution because the hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point of the Bill. If one wants to fix things in the Bill and have primary legislation like the 1968 Act, that is an option. However, I do not believe that it would go down very well with the industry, which has been asking for flexibility and a structure that can respond to innovation on one hand, and protection of the public on the other. If one wants to put everything to the House, which one can do—and the 1968 Act is a classic example of that—so be it. The hon. Gentleman has just argued forcefully for returning to the situation under the 1968 Act.
 If we want flexibility, we have to delegate to the gambling commission, in the first instance. To ensure that that regulator has some responsibility to Parliament, we must ensure that its recommendations are considered by the Secretary of State. That is what the Bill is for. The alternative is to return to the situation under the 1968 Act and put everything in the power of the Secretary of State, without any regulation or flexibility. Every time there was change in the industry, the legislation would have to come back to the House. 
 We would be bypassed by the development of the electronic age in which we live; this place does not move at the speed of the electronic age. We would finish up with an industry that would move backwards. The Bill is intended to allow the industry to compete in this country and internationally. If the hon. Gentleman wants to tie the industry down, so be it. He can go back to the model of the 1968 Act, the case for which has been prosecuted in his contributions.

Richard Page: I thank the Minister, but he has not understood a single word I said. I am not asking for everything to be placed rigidly in the Bill. The use of regulation has become excessive, and it is all Secretary of State, Secretary of State, Secretary of State. The Minister may trust the Secretary of State now and for ever, but I am slightly sceptical. If the Bill included the words ''with reference to the commission'', ''following advice from the commission'' or ''with agreement by the commission'', that would be fine, but it does not.
 Other clauses do have such wording; I shall give an example. I genuinely pulled one out at random. I am sure that there are much better examples. Clause 115 states:
 ''The holder of an operating licence shall comply with a request of the Commission'' 
to do this, that and the other. I do not see why the Secretary of State should push himself up to the front in this arrangement. Why should the gambling commission not do that? With respect, I would have a lot more faith and trust in the commission than in the Secretary of State. This Bill is a shambles. I would far rather the gambling commission ran our gambling than the Secretary of State.

Richard Caborn: I shall not prolong this exchange. I can only say that that was not the reflection of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman sat for a number of weeks. That Committee said that the legislation was good and that it wanted to reflect on it. We probably accepted 95 or 96 per cent. of its 100-odd recommendations. After that, people were saying that it was a good piece of legislation, and we have taken it forward. Some 90 per cent. of the Bill was still there, although we had to address the argument on casinos. There is a bit of a contradiction between what the hon. Gentleman says now and what was said during the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee's discussions.
 We published a delegated powers memorandum in February 2004 that explained the intention on delegated powers. We will publish a new delegated powers memorandum as soon as possible, but at least we produced the broad policy, which I think the hon. Gentleman was asking for.

Malcolm Moss: I wish to follow the theme of this debate. The Minister says that there has been proper consultation, mentions the scrutiny Committee and says that this flexible Bill allows the Secretary of State, the gambling commission or whoever to bring forward guidelines. If that is wholly true, why is it that no matter whom we talk to in the industry—the Bingo Association was mentioned in The Guardian but, as one would expect, we have also been talking to the ABB, the Casino Association, uncle Tom Cobleigh and all—none of them seems happy? If the Bill is so wonderful, why is there such disquiet? My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire put his finger on the reason: there is so much uncertainty. We accept that in large measure it is an enabling Bill and that it has to be flexible to keep pace with the rapid change of the industry. However, at the same time, assurances need to be given—otherwise everybody will be left hanging in the air. That is the point that my hon. Friend was making.

Richard Caborn: I shall give what I hope will be the definitive word on the issue. The duty to advise the Secretary of State is clearly laid down in clause 25. Clause 25(2)(b) states that such advice should be given
''on such other occasions as the Commission thinks appropriate.'' 
The clause is fairly wide on the issue of giving advice to the Secretary of State, and a judgment will be made on that. The industry will make that representation in its particular narrow area, and that is absolutely right. It usually wants more and others to have less; that is 
 part of life and one has to make a judgment on it. I say very clearly that the Bill has been broadly accepted by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. We broadly accepted that Committee's advice on the parts that it did not accept. Many said that it was a good piece of legislation and, although we are now into detailed scrutiny of the Bill, I do not believe that that has changed. 
 Clause 224 allows regulations to be made to control any and every aspect of how gaming machines will operate. That ranges from how players pay for the use of the machine to displaying information on and around the machine. We want to give flexibility to regulations so that the detailed aspects of machine use can be controlled. That is a key part of the protection in the Bill. For example, if it helped to prevent problem gambling, the regulations could require warnings to be displayed on screens and compulsory breaks in play; the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford asked what would be displayed. Moreover, the regulations could control how smartcards and similar devices for electronically storing money could be used. The old method of inserting coins into a machine to make it work has long been overtaken by modern technology. 
 Players could also be protected against unfair games; some machines will be required to operate truly randomly. Alternatively, we could set minimum returns for players: set a minimum proportion of the stake paid into the machine that must be returned as prizes, as is now required by the Gaming Board. We will look to the gambling commission to advise the Government on the details of what controls are best to achieve the licensing objectives. I expect that the commission, in advising Ministers, will draw on the experience of other jurisdictions, expert research, evidence and, as it develops, experience in this country.

Mark Prisk: I hesitate to stop the Minister in mid-flow, but I wonder whether he could allude to subsection 2(e), ''the display of information''. What kind of information do the Government intend to include?

Richard Caborn: We intend to include, for example, stickers saying that no under-18s can play a certain machine, or literature about breaks in play. All sorts of information can be displayed, which will achieve the objectives that underpin the Bill and to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Information will advise players of dangers of not doing certain things and of what machines are legal for under-18s to play.
 As I explained in earlier sittings, the regulations are at the top of the tree in terms of machine regulation. Neither the standards set by the commission on manufacture nor licence conditions can undermine those central regulations. As always, they provide us with the flexibility needed to regulate the industry.

Nick Hawkins: Unless I failed to spot it in what the Minister rapidly read out, I do not think that he answered my point about seeking a draft of the regulations. Reflecting on what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, I suspect
 that on Report hon. Members will want to reconsider clause 25 and whether the gambling commission or the Secretary of State should take the lead.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman asked me to give a broad outline of the regulations. I have said that in February 2005 we will publish the delegated powers memorandum explaining our intentions. I am giving a commitment that we want to publish a new delegated powers memorandum as soon as possible. That will be to guide hon. Members on what we are doing on delegation. I cannot give any promises on individual regulations at this stage, but we will give guidance, as we already have done.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has not answered my point about randomness and gaming machines. The Budd report stated that gaming machines should be random, and there is an acceptance that most machines in casinos should be random. Does he feel that that should be included in the Bill, or does he think it is already included, as I suppose it is, in the catch-all paragraph (f), which refers to
''any other matter relating to the manner in which a machine operates''? 
What is the Government's view on randomness?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. Paragraph (f) allows us to require a machine to be random. The Government's position is that category A machines should be random and others need not be.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 224 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 225 - Supply, &c. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: When I read the clause, it appeared to be fairly straightforward because it is rather short. It states:
 ''The Secretary of State may make regulations about the supply, installation, adaptation, maintenance or repair of a gaming machine or part of a gaming machine.'' 
If we stop to think about our discussions on what constitutes a gaming machine, the clause does not allude only to the gambling industry. Through earlier discussions we understood that computers are to be included as potential or in part gaming machines. We understood that regulations may be applied in the software industry. We were led to understand that interactive televisions will be included in the process, not least because of the overlap in technology between new hard drive controls and interactivity with televisions and computers. The phone industry will also be included. 
 If one stops to think for a moment about the implications of subsection (1), we can realise that it includes televisions, telephones, the software industry and computers. A wide range of industries may be affected by the Bill. We are talking not simply about 
 the people who manufacture those things, important though they are, but about the people who adapt, maintain or repair them, so the provision is actually a very wide net. 
 I looked at subsection (2) to try to understand the parameters of the regulations, but again there is that infamous word, ''may''. Subsection (2) says: 
 ''Regulations under subsection (1) may identify matters (whether or not addressed by other provisions of the regulations) as to which a condition may not be attached to an operating licence or to a premises licence.'' 
A condition may be attached; however, it may not, and that is the difficulty. That is a very woolly description of what the regulations may or may not do. Given that that provision applies, I imagine, to almost all of our manufacturing industry—what is left of it—let alone those who provide the maintenance, adaptation and repair of the equipment, the British industry needs to consider the provision as a whole. 
 I would be grateful if the Minister gave us some suggestion of the purpose, limit and scope of those regulations, from the business and industry point of view. Clearly, the provisions will not affect just those in the gambling industry, important as they are; the measures goes far wider. Those are my principal concerns.

Richard Page: I am conscious that I will now be partially arguing against what I said earlier; I would like to get that in before anyone else does. As I understand it, my hon. Friend is making the point that a business could be going about
''the supply, installation, adaptation, maintenance or repair of a gaming machine'', 
quite legitimately, as it thinks, and then suddenly discover, through no fault of its own, that the Secretary of State has had a rush of blood to the brain and has issued regulations that makes the business illegal. Once again, there is a nightmare with the regulations. I really do not see how we can proceed with the Bill if we do not have the regulations and do not know how the clauses refer to them.

Mark Prisk: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire—I should just say that this is not a Hertfordshire coalition. It is very good of him to play devil's advocate with the professionalism that he always brings to such processes. I think that he is right: the heart of the matter is that we understand that the gaming and gambling industry will follow the progress of the Bill, but a local repairer of personal computers will not have the faintest idea that there are regulations on such a subject, although they may intrude on his business. The same will be true for people who repair or maintain televisions, or who deal with telephones.
 I am trying to identify and clarify the parameters and what the Government are seeking to do through the regulations, so that industry can be forewarned.

Nick Hawkins: I not only endorse what my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford and for South-West Hertfordshire say, but think it particularly important that we remember, when considering the manufacturing, supply, adaptation
 and installation of such machines, that that sector of industry has been particularly successful in recent years. Anyone who has worked, as I have done, with BACTA, and who has been to its trade shows this year, will have seen that we have a business that supplies places across the world. Every year in which I have been to the trade show, I have heard better and better trade figures for the UK businesses.
 If the only thing that Parliament has seen is the guidance that the Minister promised me when we discussed clause 224, and there is nothing—not even by way of draft—for it to look at on the detail of the regulations, there is no way that this incredibly successful and expanding industry will have any security for the future. Given that the Bill has been so many years in gestation, it is not good enough for the Government to say, ''Well, we have given some guidance, and we are now revising it.'' It must not be beyond the wit of man or woman in the DCMS to show the regulations to Parliament before we pass the benighted Bill. I do not accept that we cannot see them in draft form before the Bill is discussed on Report and Third Reading, and before it goes to another place. That is important. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, if the Bill were accepted, all the powers would be in the hands of the Secretary of State, not the new commission. We might have more faith if the powers were to be in the hands of people with professional expertise of the industry. However, I do not believe that measures should be introduced in such a way. I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. That is especially important when we are considering the supply side, the manufacturing side and installation and discussing a business that has been one of the United Kingdom's big success stories. If the Minister will not give an undertaking that we shall see the regulations in draft, just to make the point, whatever other members of the Committee want to do, I say now that I shall press the Question to a Division and I hope that other hon. Members support me.

Richard Caborn: I shall try to explain the matter to the hon. Gentleman, so that he does not to call a Division on clause stand part. Clause 225 allows us to make regulations about the
''supply, installation, adaptation, maintenance or repair of a gaming machine''. 
It covers the supply chain before a machine is made available for use. The regulations will allow the control of any aspect of supplying gaming machines. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is listening to me because he asked the question. Although we expect the commission to do much of the day-to-day work on such matters, the regulation-making power ensures that we have all the tools necessary to ensure that unsafe or unfair machines do not appear on the market in Great Britain. That should protect our industry, too.

Mark Prisk: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: Not at the moment. As I have already said, we will look to the gambling commission to advise the Government on the detail of what controls are best to achieve the licensing objectives. It is clear that gambling is regulated, not the equipment—unless it is a gaming machine. For example, telephones and interactive television are not machines that have to be regulated. An operating licence is required to supply a gaming machine. At present, the Gaming Board regulates the supply and repair of gaming machines. Broadly speaking, we are taking measures from the 1968 Act and putting them into the Bill—no more and no less.

Mark Prisk: The Minister used the word ''unsafe''. I should be grateful if he clarified what he meant by that.

Richard Caborn: I meant unsafe in the sense of someone installing a piece of machinery that would be unsafe in its physical operation or would not pay out what was agreed under the licence. A machine can be unsafe in two respects. The Bill is wide ranging and we want to make sure that it protects the punter.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is right to say that regulations are in place now. I should be a lot happier if he said that he will supply to all Members of Parliament a copy of the present regulations before the Bill is discussed on Report. I am reasonably familiar with many of them, but many other hon. Members will not be, including those who have not come across the gambling industry in detail prior to the Bill. If the Government supplied a copy of the regulations and said that, in the light of the new Bill, they are the proposed changes that they want to make under clause 225 to take account of recent technological developments, that would satisfy me. However, for the Minister to say that the industry is regulated now, but that he still wants a general power under which the Secretary of State can completely change the regulations is not good enough.

Richard Caborn: I cannot give that undertaking. It is one step too far. We have had many consultation processes following ''A Fair Bet for Success'', the White Paper and discussions in the scrutiny Committee. In February 2004, we advised broadly what the regulations would be. We can play debating games, but I am sure that Members of Parliament do not want such detailed information arriving through their letter box. If they want such information, we are more than willing at the appropriate time to give it to them. We have been as open about this Bill as any other Bill that has gone through Parliament. There has been more consultation on it than there has been on many other Bills and that will make for good legislation. Being pedantic to the degree wanted by the hon. Gentleman would be a waste of my officials' time and that of hon. Members.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 225 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 226 - Making machine available for use

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: In view of our deliberations during the 10-minute suspension earlier, it has been generally agreed that a number of points that could legitimately have been raised on clause 226—for example, in respect of machines that may be made available in pubs—will be debated later. However, I hoped to raise on this clause an issue that we have raised on a number of occasions—the good old issue that has become known as the fish and chip shop concern. I would be grateful if the Minister intervened to help the Committee. If the matter is not raised on clause 226, I might be able to have a further bite of the cherry.
 Having now seen the new amendments that the Government have tabled on pub gaming machine permits—yet another addition to the panoply of new measures—I might be minded at the appropriate stage to move an amendment for a fish and chip shop gaming machine permit, a licensed taxi cab office gaming permit and several others.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman can sensibly raise that matter on clause 231, when we can have a full debate.

Don Foster: I am grateful for the Minister's helpful advice and I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Hawkins: One difficulty with what we discussed earlier—I appreciate that there has been agreement to return to it—is that, when the Government table amendments at such short notice, Committee members such as the hon. Member for Bath and I are denied the opportunity to table consequential amendments. Because we will come to clause 231 so quickly, there will not be time to table further amendments to it.
 It is always a problem if the Government table amendments on Fridays, as they did here, introducing a raft of new powers, which can be debated today, because Opposition Members and any Government Back Benchers who want to express any independence of mind are statute barred and ruled out because of time. When we first see the amendments, it is already too late for us to table consequential amendments in 
 the light of what the Government are proposing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? Does he further agree that the Government, having destroyed our fishing industry, is in danger of also destroying our fish and chip shops?

Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his soundbite in. I have no doubt whatever that it is likely to be picked up by that wonderful magazine, the Fish Friers Weekly. Actually, I think that it is called the Fish Friers Gazette. Whatever it is called, I assure hon. Members that it is a jolly good read.
 In a sense, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but it is not as fair as he would have us believe. I am guilty of failing in that regard as much as he is. Clause 231 is not that distant from clause 226 and perhaps we should have got our ideas up front a bit sooner, so that we could table the amendments in time. I am delighted that, when debating clause 231, we will have the opportunity to discuss that issue.

Peter Pike: I assure the Committee that, when we reach the later clause, I will permit the Committee to discuss the relevant aspects of clause 226. I will make sure that Mr. Gale is aware of the fact that, because the papers were submitted late, those issues will be discussed, in case he is in the Chair when we reach the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 226 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. For the record, lest I offend anybody, I should have referred to the Fish Friers Review.
 Clause 227 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 228 - Linked machines

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 278, in clause 228, page 104, leave out line 12 and insert
'in the same designated gaming area'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 279, in clause 228, page 104, line 18, at end add
', provided that the aggregate limit of prizes offered by linked machines shall not thereby be exceeded.'. 
No. 280, in clause 228, page 104, line 18, at end add— 
 '(4) The first gaming machine and the linked gaming machine are together called ''linked machines'' and shall be classed as appropriate to their primary category. 
 (5) No order made under subsection (3) shall permit any linked machine to be operated outside a designated gambling area. 
 (6) Linked machines shall each be counted as a separate machine for the purposes of section 163 and any other provision of this Act where the number of gaming machines is mentioned.'.

Malcolm Moss: These amendments are about linked machines. They primarily seek to establish ground rules to link various machines, because the linkage will
 be vertical in many cases: Cs with Bs, Bs with As and so on. The amendments are an attempt to define what is and what is not acceptable.
 In the amendments, we talk about a ''designated gaming area''. We talk about the ''first gaming machine'' and the ''linked gaming machine'', which we class together as ''linked machines''. The amendments would provide that such machines be classed as appropriate to their primary category. In other words, operators would not be able to upgrade a C machine to B status simply by linking it to a B. The machine would have to stay as originally intended. 
 Similarly, in new subsection (6), the amendment would count a linked machine 
''as a separate machine for the purposes of section 163 and any other provisions of this Act where the number of gaming machines is mentioned.'' 
That would mean that sidesteps were impossible. A small casino, entitled to x number of machines of a certain category, could not, by linking machines, upgrade or push them into different categories. That is the purpose of the amendments.

Peter Pike: For the guidance of the Committee, because I always like to be helpful—I used to be a shop steward—and to focus minds, let me say that if the Committee is not adjourned before 5.30 pm, I will at that stage take a comfort break. I hope that that makes people aware of the Chair's feelings on the matter.

Richard Caborn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire for his helpful explanation of the amendments. I understand and share his concern to ensure that linked machines in casinos are properly regulated. I hope that he will appreciate that that is why we have limited the linked machines to the same casino premises and not, at present, allowed linking between different premises. I am sure that the amendment is well meant, but I do not believe that it adds anything to clause 228. I am not sure how limiting linked machines to a designated area in a casino achieves anything more than we have at present. On that basis, I cannot recommend the amendment to the Committee and I hope that he will withdraw it.
 I have some sympathy with amendment No. 280 and the hon. Gentleman's concern that linked machines should not be able to avoid the restrictions on machine numbers by being treated as one machine. It is our policy that each machine that is linked continues to count as one machine and that the linking cannot override that. I know that my officials have sought to ensure that that is the case in the Bill, but having looked at the amendment, I would like to take some time to consider the matter further and to assure myself that what we have said is what we are delivering. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that offer to consider the matter further. 
 The Government cannot accept amendment No. 279, which attempts to circumvent the stake and prize limits in relation to the specifics under the powers in clause 220. If the purpose were achieved and the power in clause 228 were used, it would be possible for small 
 and large casinos to combine their prize pools. If we went down that road with £2,000 casino jackpot prizes that had been aggregated together, every casino, however small, would be able to offer the temptation of the £1 million win that has caused such alarm. That would inevitably result in the very proliferation of small casinos that we have been trying to avoid throughout the development of the Bill. It would mean that every machine in every casino would have the potential to be, in effect, a category A machine. I cannot think that that is what the hon. Gentleman wants and I therefore ask him not to press his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister. The fact that he will be looking at the thrust of amendment No. 280, with regard to linking and the numbers of machines in the various categories, is helpful. We look forward to further assurances on that.
 On amendment No. 279, the word ''not'' is included, but if the amendment is interpreted in the way that the Minister suggested, I take his point. That was not the intention behind it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 228 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 229 - Credit

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: Will the Minister explain why the clause is so important when he refused to accept an amendment in relation to credit which I moved during the debate on clause 77? Clause 229 states that it is an offence to install a gaming machine that allows a player to play by directly using a credit card. Concerned as I am by the growing problems with debt through the use of credit cards, it is worth reminding ourselves that the current figures suggest that debt on credit cards stands at a staggering £56 billion. GamCare tells us that the real problem of problem gambling is debt and that last year the average debt of people who contacted the organisation about that was more than £20,000. The issue of debt is crucial.
 In clause 229, the Minister is clearly concerned about the issue. He does not want people to put their credit cards into a machine and go on building up debt. Yet in the debate on clause 77 he said that it was perfectly all right for those same players who were not able to use a credit card machine to play to simply get up from the machine and walk 30 yd across the gaming floor to a third party, who would provide money from that person's credit card. 
 The Committee will be aware that there used to be—not unreasonably—the right to use a debit card, but that was changed by the Government to the use of a credit card, which is clearly a significant difference. I would therefore like the Minister to explain to the 
 Committee why it is so harmful to have a machine into which one can insert a credit card and play, while it is perfectly all right to walk 30 m across the gaming floor to use a machine or a service provider that will give credit on a credit card.

Richard Caborn: The clause makes it an offence to supply in-store or make available for use a gaming machine that permits money to be paid by credit card. There is legitimate public concern about vulnerable players running up debts that they cannot afford, and the Government share that unease, so we are prohibiting gaming machines that allow payments by credit card. Credit cards in machines are banned, but clause 77 ensures that in bingo halls and casinos the operators cannot themselves offer credit as an inducement to play. It is essential to stop direct use of credit cards in machines because of the risks of immediate repeat play. The operators of those establishments cannot offer that inducement by giving credit.

Don Foster: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving an explanation, but he has not answered my basic point. I do not see how a Government can express unease, as the Minister put it, over the debt that people will get into by using a gambling machine that takes a credit card, but not about people going to a third party to obtain credit. The nearest I heard to that from the Minister was on the issue of repeat play. If he is arguing that the sole difference making a huge change to people's debts is their inability to play one game after another, having instead to get up, walk across the room, get some money and come back, I am not convinced. I acknowledge the clear research into repeat play, so I acknowledge that a break would make some difference, but I should have thought that the Minister could come up with something rather better than that. If that is the best he can offer, however, I suspect that that is the best we will hear today.

Richard Caborn: The argument, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, is about repeat play. In a break, when one must walk so many yards or metres, the cycle of repeat play is broken. That is the object of the exercise, and therefore we believe that it fulfils a useful purpose.

Don Foster: The Minister will be aware that some credit card companies are already ensuring that their cards cannot be used for internet gambling. There is real concern about such gambling, but I suspect that I am just repeating the point that the Minister has made about repeat play. I am grateful to him for the explanation, and I certainly do not propose that we vote against the clause, because it is a useful protection. I am grateful to him for at least some sort of explanation.

Malcolm Moss: Is this is a new idea, or is the clause it lifted from the 1968 Act?

Richard Caborn: It is in the 1968 Act.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 229 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 230 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 231 - Family entertainment centre gaming machine permit

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: May I say how grateful I am to the Minister for advising me that this clause would be a useful opportunity to raise the issue of fish and chip shops yet again? I do it briefly, but it is important to hear some explanation as to why the Government are going to make it impossible for any organisation that does not have either a premises licence or an alcohol licence to have machines. We have debated the issue before and the Minister will respond that this was a recommendation from the scrutiny Committee—and that is true. However, I think that, having examined the evidence from that Committee and having talked to various representatives of the bodies that will be affected, many people have had the opportunity for second thoughts. I have had such an opportunity and I hope that the Minister has, too.
 The Minister has acknowledged that the research on category D machines is mixed, and he acknowledged today that there is a need for much more research into the likelihood of their leading to a significant growth in problem gambling. I have mentioned these figures before, but it is important that we are aware that there are currently something like 44,500 machines in 30,000 unlicensed premises. Ultimately, those premises will lose out if the Government have their way. They will prevent the use of the machines in places such as hotels, bowling alleys, cafes, mini-cab offices and fish and chip shops. However, the Government will allow the use of category D machines in a number of other institutions; for example, in motorway service stations. 
 I would be interested to hear from the Minister why he believes that having a category D machine in a motorway service station is less likely to lead to problem gambling than having one in a fish and chip shop. Surely, he would agree that the level of supervision of the use of the machine in a fish and chip shop would be far higher than that in a motorway service station. I would be grateful if he would tell us about that.

Clive Efford: I have heard the hon. Gentleman agonising over ambient gambling during debates on earlier clauses. What does he think is the impact of having the machines in places such as cafes, chip shops and kebab houses, where they are clearly played by young people who are not of an age where they should be allowed to access them? Does he not
 think that it has an adverse effect on people's gambling in future years? Does he think that we are right to take action to stop that?

Don Foster: If the hon. Gentleman believed what he said, surely he would be advocating almost immediately that the powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 157 be invoked; immediately, the machines would be removed from family entertainment centres, motorway service stations and many other locations. We must be clear about whether we believe there to be a problem. At the moment, there is no clear research on the matter. We have debated the issue at some length, and we find that the research goes both ways.
 If the hon. Gentleman were saying that, in light of prevalence studies, it may, at some future date, be appropriate for an age limit to be placed on the use of machines in certain settings, there would be a powerful argument to support him. However, the answer to his question whether there is any clear evidence showing that the use of a category D machine—where people are looking to win a cuddly toy, a £5 cash reward or tokens—leads to problem gambling in later life is that the research does not demonstrate that. The problem gambling that occurs for some young people tends to tail off. I do not deny that it exists, but it is not related to problem gambling at a later stage. That view is based on the current research that was so helpfully put together in an enjoyable document—more bedtime reading for me—by the Government recently.

Clive Efford: I wonder why we are going to all this trouble to license premises if what the hon. Gentleman says is true. Why would we be so concerned about young people having access to gaming machines, which we have discussed throughout our consideration of the Bill, if there was not evidence that they can have problems in later life having had access to such machines, which they should not be playing? Throughout my constituency, problems are caused by there being access to machines in places where children hang out in the evening.

Don Foster: I am not disputing what the hon. Gentleman is saying from his own experience. As I have acknowledged, there is some research that would back him up, but there is also research that casts huge doubt on both his experience and some that have been reported to me.
 There is an issue to do with level playing fields and what is fair. I ask the Minister to explain why it is perfectly safe to have these machines in a motorway service station, where a young person can play them, but it is significantly less safe in a fish and chip shop where, based on my own observation, the supervision is often much greater. Why is it fine in one set of circumstances and not in another, bearing in mind that the Henley centre report, which is covered in the Government's regulatory impact assessment, suggests that up to 600 such businesses will close as a result?

Richard Caborn: Our proposals have been sent to the National Federation of Fish Friers. It has yet to contact me or any of my officials. I have said that before in Committee, and I may well have said it in the House, too, because I have asked my officials whether a representation has been made. If the scenario that the hon. Gentleman paints about fish and chip shops is true, one would have thought that there would have been some representation from the federation, but it has yet to contact me or my officials.

Richard Page: I was hoping to intervene on the hon. Member for Bath, but he has obviously got tunnel vision these days and was avoiding me.
 We all want youngsters to be protected from gambling that will lead to problems. However, what evidence has the Minister got that machines in places such as fish and chip shops are causing a problem for youngsters? I am not a great visitor of fish and chip shops, unlike the hon. Member for Bath, who obviously has a season ticket to his local fryer so that he can see what is going on there. However, whenever I have visited fish and chip shops, I have not seen rows of youngsters gambling away; I have only ever seen people occasionally slipping their change into machines on the chance that they may be able to cover the cost of their meal, and then they go away to eat their food.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman knows about recommendation 61 of the Joint Committee. Evidence that machines in these locations were often illegally sited has been accepted, and there were serious concerns that the machines were not properly supervised. The Gaming Board also gave evidence to the Joint Committee about illegal siting of machines in fish and chip shops and adult-only machines.
 Parts of motorway service stations are family entertainment centres. They have a permit or a licence—depending on the machines—which contains an obligation to supervise. Therefore, there is a requirement for the proper supervision of those machines.

Don Foster: I do not want us to lose sight of the earlier point, because it is important. The Minister told us that the National Federation of Fish Friers Ltd. has not been in touch with his Department over this issue. I draw his attention to paragraph 2.24 of his departmental Gambling Bill regulatory impact assessment, which gives the views of the federation. I assume that it shared those views with the Government, otherwise they would not have included them in their assessment.

Richard Caborn: They were made before we made our proposals.

Don Foster: There might be a simple explanation for such matters in that the federation expressed its view to another body, and the Government noticed it. Paragraph 2.24 states:
 ''The National Federation of Fish Friers Ltd, which represents the interest of 8,500 fish and chip shop outlets has expressed concerns about the proposals that gaming machines should only be allowed in premises specifically licensed for gambling or the sale of alcohol.'' 
That clearly excludes the provision.

Richard Caborn: For completeness, that representation was made before the proposal of the scrutiny Committee, which was made before the pre-legislative scrutiny changes.
Mr. Page rose—
Mr. Hawkins rose—

Richard Caborn: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has been in Committee throughout debate on these matters.

Richard Page: The Minister is right. We discussed the matter at some length in the scrutiny Committee, but I did not see any conclusive evidence that pointed to the danger. I simply asked him what evidence he had that such matters were a danger for youngsters? I was not criticising the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee.
 Matters concerning motorway service stations took up a great deal of time in our debate. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) will back me up that we were of the opinion that the designated areas inside motorway stations were not supervised at all. They are often tucked away and have an entrance that is not readily visible by anyone in authority, and youngsters can go in and play machines to their heart's content.

Richard Caborn: If that were happening, licence conditions would be being broken and the authorities would have to deal with it. The Gaming Board gave evidence to the Joint Committee about the illegal siting of machines in fish and chip shops and adult-only machines. I recall that the complaint was raised in the debate between the Budd report and ''A Safe Bet for Success''. The inability to police such matters was a matter of real concern to local authorities, so permits and licensing were introduced to assure the general public that such machines would not be abused.

Nick Hawkins: I wanted to follow up the exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for Bath about the response or otherwise of the National Federation of Fish Friers. Since the Government came to power, most Departments, not only but certainly including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, have seemed to believe that, if they put a request for something on their website, each representative organisation would spot it. That might be why the hon. Member for Bath can read out a specific point from the Government's regulatory impact assessment saying that a representative body was commenting on their proposals.
 The Minister has said that the federation has not commented again after the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. It commented the first time, so perhaps it thinks that the Government should continue to listen to its original proposal and that there is no need for it to respond again to what was quoted in the regulatory 
 impact assessment. Just because it did not respond the second time does not make it wrong. If the proposals are similar, the federation's response is still valid. 
 I wish to know how the Government's civil servants have tried to contact the National Federation of Fish Friers. If, as I fear, it was a matter of simply putting something on the Department's website, the Government must understand that most people still respond to letters and do not trawl though websites.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again; we sent the federation a letter.

Malcolm Moss: I want to clarify the position of ten-pin bowling alleys. The scrutiny Committee concluded that the Government have acknowledged that consideration would be given to the treatment of ten-pin bowling centres, which made the point that they are more like family entertainment centres or adult gaming centres than a pub and queried the restriction to two machines. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have made any moves in respect of bowling centres.

Richard Caborn: Yes. The hon. Member for Bath listed a number of areas that he said were banned but are not banned. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is right that, if all the conditions are met, bowling alleys or cafes with an alcohol licence could apply for a family entertainment centre licence. Only certain premises will be banned.

Malcolm Moss: That was not the question that I was posing. The Minister is confirming that bowling alleys will be classified in the same category as pubs, so they will be able to have two machines automatically, but will have to apply for more. That will cause a bureaucratic nightmare because many of them have 20 or more machines at the moment, which will presumably have to disappear, and they will then have to apply for permits for a lot more. The same applies to pubs.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has got that wrong. The recommendation of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which we have accepted, is that an area such as a bowling alley can have a family entertainment centre within it. A motorway service station may have a licence for part of the building to be an FEC and the same would apply to a bowling alley.

Malcolm Moss: That would allow only category D machines, not category C machines.

Richard Caborn: No. It depends whether a permit or licence for category D or C machines is applied for. A permit is required for category D machines and a licence is required for category D and C machines. It depends what they apply for, but that is within the permitted area.

Malcolm Moss: That is understood. I have one further question. Would there be an exclusive area for category C machines as opposed to category D machines?

Richard Caborn: As there is now in motorway service stations.

Don Foster: Just to end the deliberations so that we can make progress, the excellent Fat Friar fish and chip shop in Batheaston on the outskirts of Bath has quite large premises and has even taken into its premises the operation of our local post office. Would the Fat Friar be able to apply for a permit for part of its area and meet the necessary requirements?

Richard Caborn: If it was wholly or mainly for machines, it could apply for an FEC licence, but the fish and chip shop would have to be very big.

Don Foster: We return to the dilemma of the FEC beside a regional casino and the ''knocking down of the wall'' scenario that we discussed earlier. If the Fat Friar in Batheaston had a separate area, however small—perhaps sufficient for just one person and one machine—would it be able to apply for a permit?

Richard Caborn: I am reflecting on that. I am advised that the gambling commission will offer guidance. However, so as not to raise the hon. Gentleman's expectations, the answer is that one machine in one fish and chip shop would probably not be designated an FEC. Guidance will be given by the gambling commission, but I do not want to raise expectations because the fish and chip would probably have to be much bigger and genuinely have an FEC.

Don Foster: The Minister has not seen the wonderful premises and does not know how big they are. They are quite extensive.
 We have made progress and we might have helped at least one fish and chip shop in the country. When we come to schedule 8, we shall have an opportunity for a similar debate about a range of other premises that are currently affected. The Minister will have had time to reflect slightly more on the nature of the guidance that is likely to be offered by the gambling commission. I hope that we can now make a bit of progress. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 231 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock till Thursday 9 December at half-past Nine o'clock.